How many of you still admit to supporting the Clown, Trump?

Yes because $100,000 in liquid assets equates to $billions in hard assets. It's all the same.

And if it was as cut and dried as you make it to seem and if Trump is doing anything illegal it would have been addressed and dealt with accordingly already. Talk about for arguments sake.

 

When Obama was in office, it was known to the repubs that they wouldn't work with him to get things done.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/republicans-wont-even-fake-it/470790/

http://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ryan-still-refuses-work-untrustworthy-obama

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40007802/...goal-make-obama--term-president/#.WNLTH_krKUl

If the Dems are doing it now, it's wrong, doesn't help anyone, just the politicians.

And you're right, there is a lot of Trump bashing. There's some Repubs that are bashing Trump as well. His approval ratings at around 37%. According to your logic, that means that the other 63% dont know what they're talking and or are stupid libs?

 

Did people like Bloomberg divest all his assets when he was the mayor of NY? Have all rich politicians divested their holdings while they were in office....or is it just a presidential thing??

 

I will give you the fact that the breadth of Trump enterprises makes all this very different and difficult, but it doesn't absolve him of actions taken to limit even the appearance of CoI. While a real blind trust would still allow him to know of his holdings, at least he would have made a discrete separation of control; it solves quite a bit of the problem in my mind.
Mongo's assertion that he isn't involved in business decisions in the current setup doesn't pass the smell test. In sum: A compromise is not where we have landed.

As far as liquidation, he could sell his holdings right now and profit to beat the band. Would it take a long time? Yeah. Would people complain? Duh. Would he get out of the emoluments/CoI issue? Absolutely. This is all moot anyway as he isn't doing anything (other than his own unique brand of winning, and we'll see where that takes him).
I respect you think differently. We'll see how things shake out.

 

Of course they did. Roosevelt and Kennedy both. Oh wait, they were Democrats. Oops, never mind.
Lib logic once again.

 

I have a lot to criticize about Trump. But I'm also trying to be transparent. I did NOT like Obama, and would NOT have liked Hillary. I'm really REALLY disappointed in the choices we've been given - and they seem to be getting progressively (pun there) worse.

The fact here is that there are plenty of things to criticize, but I believe it's terribly dangerous to force some of the things you're suggesting on Trump - and with negligible (if any) benefit. Doing so would further decrease the likelihood that any successful business person would ever again seek the office of POTUS. Why would they? To then also risk those actions being tied up by lawsuits brought on by every anti-Trump (or fill in the blank) group out there just in an attempt to damage him regardless of right or wrong? Forcing such actions does nothing but effectively modify our constitution - without the legal basis to do so. If you want this as a solution, do it the right way.

Change the constitution.

The assertion that Trump has removed himself from business decisions doesn't pass YOUR smell test. It passes mine. Frankly, other than ego, I've never understood why he'd even want this job - and I see no reason why he would somehow try to make decisions in order to potentially get some sort of personal gain. To me, that idea just doesn't pass the smell test. It makes no sense.

The Blind Trust thing has been discussed time after time. The overwhelming of disinterested parties have acknowledged that in this case is does just about nothing - again, because Trump cannot "Un-Know" things, or forget where physical assets are. It is a solution without a benefit. It does not provide the basic result that a Blind Trust is intended to do.

As for completely divesting, I'm sorry but that's just not a reasonable - or even an honest suggestion. You claim he could liquidate "right now" and that is simply not true at all. Not even remotely, and if you know anything about international business, you know this is absolutely true. It would take at best months to even package what each of the assets might be. Many of them would require regulatory involvement just for considering sales. Then, there is the fact that many have financing involved - or assets that may leverage equity in other assets. Disentangling this would be a very big job, and even getting to the point where you could identify buyers would take well into the middle of this 4yr term. Then you get into the sale itself.

And oh, btw, all of this incurs cost - including a bunch of cost to the taxpayer, as you know everybody on the left would want to see in incredible detail the minutes of every discussion, agreement, sale, etc - before they even took place. Then reviews to insure compliance, and to make sure that somehow he wasn't gaining financial gain as a result of the liquidation.

An honest inspection of the real issues without the blinders of a Trump hating bias gives one the real understanding that this is all a fools errand. If people were stupid enough to try and force this, IMHO it ends up in the SCOTUS arena. If I were Trump, I'd fight it tooth and nail. And again, I don't like the guy.

 

Ah, but was an article written for the news about Obama eating babies or did that just show up on forums written by people attempting to write a little humor? The article about Trump and his hotel plans is a news article.

 

Can you please provide supporting data for the idea that President Trump has specific Hotel Plans. I'd like to see a link to a fact based story. Until then I'm going to consider this just another bs claim.

 

That's a good question. Trump announced that he was divesting himself of any control of his investments during his Presidency. That's good on it's face. The only problem is that he turned it over to his kids whom work for Trump. Hell, Ivanka even has an office in the White House. Some separation huh?
Personally I don't give a rat's ass if he runs his companies still or not. My problem is that he's not coming forward with accurate tweets about what he's doing. That's all the ammunition that his enemies need to keep the media alive and on the attack. They will not leave him alone to concentrate on being a President as long as he's acting like a child and running off at the mouth.

Another headline today tells about some girl that made a video online show Trump punching a kitten. Trump supposedly is having his attorneys looking into it. His skin is to thin you can see through it.

 

Originally coming from the AP I think.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/325044-trump-organization-launching-new-hotel-chain

 

Look folks, as a person I find Trump like many people that I don't care for because of the constant self-promotion exhibited. With Trump it's always "I can do it better," or "I'm smarter," or "Congress is stupid" or any other hundreds of verbal statements and tweets meant to insult someone else. He brings all this bad press on himself. He just cannot shut the fuck up, duck his head, and be a President that gets the job done with a businesslike approach. I like most of his ideas and hope he has success in his attempts but he's not going to have any real success if he keeps everyone in the frigging world pissed off at his insults and petty attitude. He's a smart businessman but he's got to stop bragging on himself about it.

 

Really? Are you working on the assumption that he's not in contact with his corporations? That is a naive way of thinking. He is too much of a control freak to let any CEO of his corporations make decisions without his input. Remember, he's in daily contact with his son and daughter who are in contact with all his corporations. Yeah, he's got his fingers in it.

 

Again Sean, he's throwing wrenches into his own gears by acting as he is. I don't know many people that claim to like a braggart. It's condescension that's out of control.

 

I completely agree with you about this. Even more, I think it isn't just bragging and insulting. This whole thing about Obama wiretapping him. It was the height of stupidity for him to open his mouth publicly and make such a claim. He could have just as easily directed his Attorney General to investigate it - and THEN if there was evidence, bring forward the allegation. I think it's entirely possible that there "could have been" some sort of surveillance. Maybe it was legal. But the public statement he made were worse than just bragging or insulting.

OTOH, I also (whether I agree with the order or not) agree that he had the right to issue the executive order about the ban(s). But his friggin mouth being stuck in the on position just continues to negatively impact his ability to do his job.

 

That's your opinion. And it's one I don't share. And I'm still waiting for a solution - other than to just tell any successful global business person "no need to apply here - your application for POTUS will be rejected". Seems to me you need to kind of amend the Constitution to do that. And I sure don't recall that happening with JFK for one. Or George Washington. Or any of the Presidents before 1845. They were all very wealthy.

 

Fact, allegation or using another Trump to infer that it is Donald?

 

Hands up who didn't know Trump had plethora business holdings and interests when they went into the voting booth...